Civilization Wishlist for Civ VII

[Ryansinbela]

Also please something else besides Gandhi

 

[Zaarin]

China - Chiang Chung-cheng

This would get Civ7 a boycott from me. The man was a brutal, oppressive megalomaniac; that the man he was opposing was also a brutal, oppressive megalomaniac doesn't really diminish that fact. (No matter who won the Chinese civil war, the people of China were going to lose.) There are 2,100 years of Chinese emperors to choose from; if you want China to be the villain, at least choose Wu Zetian, Han Wudi, Gaozong of Song, or someone like that who wasn't dictator yesterday in historical terms.

Judea - Judas Maccabeus

I think Hellenistic Judea would be an interesting way to portray the civ, but I'd rather choose a Hasmonid than Judas Maccabeus himself. Salome Alexandra is an obvious choice there given the strength of her rule and her reestablishment of the Sanhedrin.

Japan - Meiji

Not if you want to sell the game in Japan. There's a reason the devs have always chosen a shogun or shikken to lead Japan, and it's not just Western obsession with a romanticized view of the Sengoku Jidai.

Brits - Boudica, Brutus, Coel, or Leir

The Britons' civilization paled in comparison to that of the Gauls, and everything we know about them dates after their assimilation into Roman culture. There's not a lot of compelling reason to choose the Britons over the Gauls, Irish, or even the Welsh.

Powhatan - Pocahontas

Why would you choose the poster child of how colonialism destroyed Native lives over, say, one of the most charismatic Native American chiefs whose name is in the civ name? There are plenty of Native American women who actually led their tribes who didn't die of smallpox in England.

Also please something else besides Gandhi

We should be so lucky.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Among many other things, I question the need for England, Anglo-Saxons, Britons and Great Britain but no Celtic Civ of any kind, either continental or from the Isles.
Also, your group defined as "Eastern" seem to be largely Central or north-central Asian, so the title is distinctly Eurocentric, while Subcontinental seems to lump together South Asian and Southeast Asian cultures.

And relatively minor, but why do people keep listing their Sioux/Lakota leaders from among those that lost, and not Red Cloud, the Lakota leader who won his war with the United States?

 

[Zaarin]

Among many other things, I question the need for England, Anglo-Saxons, Britons and Great Britain but no Celtic Civ of any kind, either continental or from the Isles.

The Britons were Celts, albeit Latinized Celts--but their poorly attested language obviously survived sufficiently to become Welsh, Breton, and Cornish. More baffling is having England...but having Elizabeth (I, one assumes) leading Great Britain...a generation before the Act of Union and a century before anyone used the term "Great Britain" to mean anything except an island, more than half of which she didn't rule.

And relatively minor, but why do people keep listing their Sioux/Lakota leaders from among those that lost, and not Red Cloud, the Lakota leader who won his war with the United States?

Yes. What Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, Sacagawea, and Pocahontas all have in common is that they're all Native Americans whose loss and/or submission conveniently underscored the Manifest Destiny narrative. Tecumseh, Osceola, Squanto/Tisquantum, and King Philip/Metacom also belong on that list.

 

[Saxo Grammaticus]

I would certainly expect greater representation of women in power from the get-go with Civ VII.

Based off of my idea to have Cultural groups to which Civilizations belong

I'm largely sympathetic to adding cultural groups, all the more if they outright integrate Sui Generis. It's reminiscent of Civ IV's leader traits and to some extent starting technologies, but more developed.

Huns - Etzel

Correct me if I'm wrong...is Etzel not mostly a representation of Attila?

 

[BuchiTaton]

6. México - Hernán Cortés

Why people keep suggesting some of the most hated historical figures as Mexico´s leaders?
Hernán Cortés like Antonio Lopéz de Santa Anna are two big NO as mexican leaders.

 

[Zaarin]

Correct me if I'm wrong...is Etzel not mostly a representation of Attila?

Yes, Etzel was just another name for Attila from German romantic poetry.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

And relatively minor, but why do people keep listing their Sioux/Lakota leaders from among those that lost, and not Red Cloud, the Lakota leader who won his war with the United States?

Still they are the best options compared to the other North American Native Americans, being Pocahontas and Sacagawea.

Yes. What Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, Sacagawea, and Pocahontas all have in common is that they're all Native Americans whose loss and/or submission conveniently underscored the Manifest Destiny narrative. Tecumseh, Osceola, Squanto/Tisquantum, and King Philip/Metacom also belong on that list.

Tecumseh should have been the Native American leader in Civ 4. Despite it being the most absurd blob civ, that at least fit his personal goals of forming a Native American confederacy, and would have made the design for the civ better.

 

[Zaarin]

Tecumseh should have been the Native American leader in Civ 4. Despite it being the most absurd blob civ, that at least fit his personal goals of forming a Native American confederacy, and would have made the design for the civ better.

Tecumseh would have fit better, yeah, though Sitting Bull maybe fits the "absurd stereotype" motif better. Though Sitting Bull was also part of a pan-Indian movement, the Ghost Dance, even if he perverted it for his own ends.

 

[Krajzen]

I just want a non nomadic civ from Central Asia, and by Central Asia I mean the precise modern day notion of "Soviet Central Asia" or "Stans" or "Transoxiana" if you prefer - The area of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Kazachstan and East Turkiestan. Like yeah we had some nomadic empires but a) In very different cultural areas and b) Central Asia had a ton of 'real' urban state civilizations.

My absolute favourite would be of course a Timurid civ with Samarkand capital and Timur as a leader, as it would a) Perfectly express this cultural region b) Make modern Uzbeks happy c) Be spectacular as hell d) One more islamic civ in a game with very few and e) Ruin the myth of 'nomadic' central asia and Timurid Empire. You could even do that civilization without Timur as a leader but with scientific Shah Rukh, to deconstruct even more, but I'm afraid Tamerlane is simply too much to ignore.

But there are more options than Timurids. The second best option would be Sogdians who basically founded the entire area. You could also simply make Uzbeks as a civ with Timurid and later early modern civs elements. Uyghurs are also worthy of a separate civilization for themselves.

Generally I think those four would be the most major and simplest civs from this area to implement, although there is a ton of secondary candidates:
- The entire saga of mixed Greeko/Buddhist/ Central Asian civilizations such as Kushans, Indo - Greek Bactria, later variations etc
- Some interesting but 'too archeological' cultures such as Tocharians, Bactria - Mariana etc
- Kazakhs, but they were steppe nomads
- Kyrgyz honestly weren't super spectacular
- I'd love Samanid civ but nobody else would care about it, and the topic of general Tajik entity and language and gow they relate to Persian civilization gave me a headache, though not nearly as bad as the chaos of...
- ...precise distinctions and clear history of Turkic, Gokturk, Turkmen and Turkoman peoples, I am unable to comprehend Turkic peoples history in Central Asia
- Other civilizations such as Kara Khanids...

So, there is plenty to choose from.

 

[Sigilization]

What about Minoans?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

What about Minoans?

Information about them is hard to get including language, and leaders, unless they just end up making the mythological King Minos speak Greek.
Best option is to make them a city-state.

 

[Zaarin]

I just want a non nomadic civ from Central Asia, and by Central Asia I mean the precise modern day notion of "Soviet Central Asia" or "Stans" or "Transoxiana" if you prefer - The area of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Kazachstan and East Turkiestan. Like yeah we had some nomadic empires but a) In very different cultural areas and b) Central Asia had a ton of 'real' urban state civilizations.

My absolute favourite would be of course a Timurid civ with Samarkand capital and Timur as a leader, as it would a) Perfectly express this cultural region b) Make modern Uzbeks happy c) Be spectacular as hell d) One more islamic civ in a game with very few and e) Ruin the myth of 'nomadic' central asia and Timurid Empire. You could even do that civilization without Timur as a leader but with scientific Shah Rukh, to deconstruct even more, but I'm afraid Tamerlane is simply too much to ignore.

But there are more options than Timurids. The second best option would be Sogdians who basically founded the entire area. You could also simply make Uzbeks as a civ with Timurid and later early modern civs elements. Uyghurs are also worthy of a separate civilization for themselves.

Generally I think those four would be the most major and simplest civs from this area to implement, although there is a ton of secondary candidates:
- The entire saga of mixed Greeko/Buddhist/ Central Asian civilizations such as Kushans, Indo - Greek Bactria, later variations etc
- Some interesting but 'too archeological' cultures such as Tocharians, Bactria - Mariana etc
- Kazakhs, but they were steppe nomads
- Kyrgyz honestly weren't super spectacular
- I'd love Samanid civ but nobody else would care about it, and the topic of general Tajik entity and language and gow they relate to Persian civilization gave me a headache, though not nearly as bad as the chaos of...
- ...precise distinctions and clear history of Turkic, Gokturk, Turkmen and Turkoman peoples, I am unable to comprehend Turkic peoples history in Central Asia
- Other civilizations such as Kara Khanids...

So, there is plenty to choose from.

I strongly agree with this. Sogdia would be my top choice for pre-Islamic; Afghanistan is currently my top choice for post-Islamic with Shah Ahmad Durrani as leader. It would be fun having a Pashto-speaking leader. I'd only be interested in the Timurids if we got someone like Shah Rokh as a leader; Timur is just too close to being "the other Genghis Khan" for me. Uzbeks are also a good candidate; TBH I'd be excited about them just for the turquoise domes.

Tocharians

I wish there were a good way to represent the Tocharians. I know we just know too little about them--we know where they ruled and have some place and personal names, but we really don't know a lot about their civilization per se--but it's just so fascinating to find a centum language so far East, turning Indo-European linguistics on its head, etc.

What about Minoans?

Information about them is hard to get including language, and leaders, unless they just end up making the mythological King Minos speak Greek.
Best option is to make them a city-state.

Aye, a Knossos city-state is really the best we can do in regard to Minoa. Knossos, Ugarit, and Teotihuacan are all cities that would probably be better removed from their respective civs' city lists and promoted to full city-states.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Just add one more candidate to @Krasjen's excellent post: The Kushan Empire, which stretched from Central Asia to northwestern India, acted as a middle-man between Rome, Persia and China for trade, and although founded by Yuezhi pastoralists, controlled virtually all of the great trade cities of central Asia from Begram to Marakhanda (Samarkand), Kashgar, Merv, Turfan, Khotan, etc

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Not if you want to sell the game in Japan. There's a reason the devs have always chosen a shogun or shikken to lead Japan, and it's not just Western obsession with a romanticized view of the Sengoku Jidai.

So Itou Hirobumi is a no go for Japan then? with he represented Japanese transitions from Feudal world into Strong industrial powers capable of winning over everybody they fought against. (with himself one of the Last Samurais)? is this the reason why Meiji Japan got cut off in Humankind as another Asian civ choice of Industrial Era (in addition to Siam)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

So Itou Hirobumi is a no go for Japan then? with he represented Japanese transitions from Feudal world into Strong industrial powers capable of winning over everybody they fought against. (with himself one of the Last Samurais)? is this the reason why Meiji Japan got cut off in Humankind as another Asian civ choice of Industrial Era (in addition to Siam)

Depicting Meiji Japan in a game like Humankind, I assume, would be fine as long as you don't depict an actual leader.

I suppose Meiji Japan wasn't in the game is because that would have been the third Japanese culture in a row, and they wanted some differentiation.

 

[Zaarin]

So Itou Hirobumi is a no go for Japan then? with he represented Japanese transitions from Feudal world into Strong industrial powers capable of winning over everybody they fought against. (with himself one of the Last Samurais)? is this the reason why Meiji Japan got cut off in Humankind as another Asian civ choice of Industrial Era (in addition to Siam)

Itō Hirobumi would be fair game. It's only depicting the emperors themselves that the Japanese frown upon. Like @Alexander's Hetaroi said, I doubt that had anything to do with their removal in Humankind.

Just add one more candidate to @Krasjen's excellent post: The Kushan Empire, which stretched from Central Asia to northwestern India, acted as a middle-man between Rome, Persia and China for trade, and although founded by Yuezhi pastoralists, controlled virtually all of the great trade cities of central Asia from Begram to Marakhanda (Samarkand), Kashgar, Merv, Turfan, Khotan, etc

And once upon a time we could have treated them as Tocharians. Now we know they were Iranian, of course, speaking Bactrian specifically.

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

I'd be quite disappointed if there was no Islamic leader, Indian civ or Russia in the base game personally.

My assumption was that each Culture would almost be the equivalent of adding a new Civilization, so that it'd make production more efficient to add some Cultures in later. But without my proposed Culture system I wholeheartedly agree.

This would get Civ7 a boycott from me. The man was a brutal, oppressive megalomaniac; that the man he was opposing was also a brutal, oppressive megalomaniac doesn't really diminish that fact. (No matter who won the Chinese civil war, the people of China were going to lose.) There are 2,100 years of Chinese emperors to choose from; if you want China to be the villain, at least choose Wu Zetian, Han Wudi, Gaozong of Song, or someone like that who wasn't dictator yesterday in historical terms.

Did you boycott Civilization IV for including Mao and Stalin? I wanted a Taiwanese leader who also wielded authority on the mainland at one point. Are there better candidates for a Chinese Leader who meets that criteria?

Why would you choose the poster child of how colonialism destroyed Native lives over, say, one of the most charismatic Native American chiefs whose name is in the civ name? There are plenty of Native American women who actually led their tribes who didn't die of smallpox in England.

And relatively minor, but why do people keep listing their Sioux/Lakota leaders from among those that lost, and not Red Cloud, the Lakota leader who won his war with the United States?

Why people keep suggesting some of the most hated historical figures as Mexico´s leaders?
Hernán Cortés like Antonio Lopéz de Santa Anna are two big NO as mexican leaders.

I've personally always gravitated towards including the most well-known an iconic leaders. I know other players have other variable which they weigh more heavily in their calculations as to who should be Leaders, but that's mine. Pocahontas is arguably the most well known Amerindian of all time. And it's hard enough to meet the inevitable female leader quota that Firaxis seems to have, so when a female Leader is truly iconic, her inclusion makes sense.

Yes, Etzel was just another name for Attila from German romantic poetry.

Exactly. I named him that because I was envisioning his portrayal this time around less as the "Scourge of God" and more along the lines of the Nibelungenlied.

 

[Zaarin]

Did you boycott Civilization IV for including Mao and Stalin?

I was 14 at the time so no; I certainly would now. I dislike 20th century history to begin with, but including brutal 20th century despots like Chiang, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, etc. is completely unjustifiable.

I wanted a Taiwanese leader who also wielded authority on the mainland at one point. Are there better candidates for a Chinese Leader who meets that criteria?

Not really. Taiwan was a backwater for most of history until the Kuomintang was left with little choice but to colonize it. While I can appreciate the desire to irk the PRC, it's giving them far more credit than they deserve; China existed for thousands of years before they did.

I've personally always gravitated towards including the most well-known an iconic leaders. I know other players have other variable which they weigh more heavily in their calculations as to who should be Leaders, but that's mine. Pocahontas is arguably the most well known Amerindian of all time. And it's hard enough to meet the inevitable female leader quota that Firaxis seems to have, so when a female Leader is truly iconic, her inclusion makes sense.

So how about Molly Brant instead? She was actually involved in leading the Iroquois, wasn't sold off as a token bride to make peace, and didn't die of smallpox in a foreign land after being paraded in front of the English court in what practically amounted to a circus. I'd love to see the Powhatan included, but only if lead by Wahunsenacawh/Powhatan himself. The man was a brilliant leader and extremely charismatic.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

And it's hard enough to meet the inevitable female leader quota that Firaxis seems to have, so when a female Leader is truly iconic, her inclusion makes sense.

The keyword is "Leader" which she wasn't. She never wielded any political power or influence at all, unlike even Gandhi who at least did have influence in India. Same goes for Sacagawea. As @Zaarin said you could always do Molly Brant or Jigonhsasee for the Iroquois if you want a female Native American leader.